ST GENEVIEVE NURSING
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
St. Genevieve Nursing has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families looking for care. It ranks #119 out of 479 nursing homes in Missouri, placing it in the top half of facilities in the state, and #1 out of 2 in Ste. Genevieve County, meaning only one local option is better. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2023 to 5 in 2024. Staffing is average with a 3/5 rating and a turnover rate of 51%, which is below the state average. Notably, there are no fines on record, and the facility has more RN coverage than 86% of Missouri facilities, which is a strength as RNs can identify problems that CNAs might miss. On the downside, the facility has faced concerns regarding food service management and sanitation. Specific incidents include the lack of a qualified professional overseeing food preparation, which could impact all residents, and unsanitary conditions in the kitchen, such as ice buildup in freezers and detergent stored improperly. While there are strengths in staffing and RN coverage, families should be aware of these ongoing issues in food service and sanitation.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Missouri
- #119/479
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 51% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Missouri facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 32 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Missouri. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near Missouri avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided care for two residents (Resident #7 and #27) out of 14 sampled residents and three residents (Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy to ensure the Criminal Background Check (CBC), Employee Disqualification List (EDL - a listing of individuals who have ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an error rate of less than five percent (%) when medications were given. There were 28 opportunities with two errors...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to follow appropriate infection control practices while assisting two residents (Resident #7 and #27) out of 14 sampled re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain appropriate infection control practices for two residents (Resident #13 and #41) out of 14 sampled residents and one...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain quarterly Quality Assurance & Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings with the required members. The facility's census was 52.
Rev...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have a clinically qualified nutritional professional designated as the Food and Nutritional Service Manager for one of one food service kit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food under sani...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2021
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the advance directive (a written statement o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document notification in writing to the resident and/or responsible...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0624
(Tag F0624)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document preparation and orientation for transfer to the hospital f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written information to the resident and/or the resident's r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS: a federally manda...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have a clinically qualified nutritional professional designated as the Food and Nutritional Service Manager for one of one food service kit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food under sanitary conditions. This deficient practice potentially affected all of the...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Missouri facilities.
- • 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is St Genevieve Nursing's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ST GENEVIEVE NURSING an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Missouri, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is St Genevieve Nursing Staffed?
CMS rates ST GENEVIEVE NURSING's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 51%, compared to the Missouri average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at St Genevieve Nursing?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at ST GENEVIEVE NURSING during 2021 to 2024. These included: 15 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates St Genevieve Nursing?
ST GENEVIEVE NURSING is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by COMMUNITY CARE CENTERS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 90 certified beds and approximately 50 residents (about 56% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SAINTE GENEVIEVE, Missouri.
How Does St Genevieve Nursing Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, ST GENEVIEVE NURSING's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (51%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting St Genevieve Nursing?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is St Genevieve Nursing Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ST GENEVIEVE NURSING has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Missouri. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at St Genevieve Nursing Stick Around?
ST GENEVIEVE NURSING has a staff turnover rate of 51%, which is 5 percentage points above the Missouri average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was St Genevieve Nursing Ever Fined?
ST GENEVIEVE NURSING has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is St Genevieve Nursing on Any Federal Watch List?
ST GENEVIEVE NURSING is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.